Back
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Mohammad Rafiq, C. J., Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
LAVLESH KUMAR MISHRA - APPELLANT
Versus
MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
W. A. No. 497 of 2021
Decided On : 25-08-2021
Resignation - Employment Dispute - Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005 - The appellant, an ex-serviceman, filed a writ petition assailing the acceptance of his resignation and seeking reinstatement and salary. The appellant alleged threats and non-cooperation from the bank in response to his complaints against a local politician. The court analyzed the appellant's resignation, finding it to be voluntary and in accordance with the Service Regulations. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acceptance of the resignation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an ex-serviceman, alleged threats and non-cooperation from the bank in response to his complaints against a local politician. He filed a writ petition assailing the acceptance of his resignation and seeking reinstatement and salary.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant's resignation to be voluntary and in accordance with the Service Regulations. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acceptance of the resignation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's resignation was voluntary and in accordance with the Service Regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's resignation was voluntary and in accordance with the Service Regulations, and therefore, the acceptance of the resignation was valid.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the acceptance of the appellant's resignation.
JUDGMENT MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, C. J. : – This appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal), Adhiniyam, 2005 is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench dated 6-1-2021, whereby the writ petition (W. P. No. 3607/2018) filed by appellant Lavlesh Kumar Mishra has been dismissed. The appellant in the writ petition assailed the order dated 20-12-2017 (Annexure P/1) accepting his resignation dated 19-9-2017 and prayed for a further direction to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to reinstate him in service and grant him salary with all the consequential benefits.
2. The facts as stated by the appellant are that he is an ex-serviceman. He was appointed on 21-11-2015 on the post of Office Assistant (Multipurpose) with the respondent-Madhyanchal Gramin Bank (A Joint Venture of the Government of India, State Bank of India and Government of Madhya Pradesh). On successful completion of probation period, he was confirmed on the aforesaid post vide order dated 17-6-2017. According to the appellant, while he was posted at Branch Baraundha, District Satna under the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 5 Phool Chand Patel, who was a local politician and an old defaulter of the respondent Bank, came to the branch office with one Jageshwar Prasad, a beneficiary of a certain government scheme and pressurized the appellant to transfer money payable under that scheme to his account, having different name and particulars. The appellant advised him to get a new account opened in his name so that the money received under the government scheme could be transferred. The respondent No. 5 however using his local influence pressurized the appellant to act against the Rules. When the appellant refused to oblige, he started shouting and abusing him and threatened him with dire consequences. The appellant reported the matter to the local Police Station on 21-8-2017 but due to political influence of the respondent No. 5, the SHO of the Police Station did not lodge the FIR. The appellant then on 22-8-2017 submitted a written complaint to respondent No. 4-Regional Manager of the Bank for taking appropriate action and giving him security and also reported the incident to the higher officials of the Bank i.e. respondents No. 1 and 3 by e-mail. Thereafter, on 24-8-2017, the appellant detailing the checkered history of the respondent No. 5 and his family members, submitted a representation to respondent No. 4- Regional Manager of the Bank seeking due action in the matter. It was also mentioned by the appellant that even a criminal case on the basis of complaint filed by one Smt. Meena Chaurasiya for misappropriating the fund and illegal withdrawal of amount was registered against the respondent No. 5. Despite all this, the respondents No. 1 to 4 maintained sphinx like silence. Emboldened by their such attitude, the respondent No. 5 openly started threatening the appellant on phone and otherwise.
3. The appellant thereafter submitted an application on 25-8-2017 to the respondent No. 4- the Regional Manager of the Bank, seeking his transfer to any other Branch like Majhgawan, Kamadgiri or Paldev, but the respondent No. 4 did not take any action. In order to overcome the pressure of respondent No. 5 and apprehending danger to his life, the appellant submitted a detailed complaint against him to the Superintendent of Police, Satna on 26-8-2017. Still when nothing happened due to political influence of the respondent No. 5, the appellant was constrained to file a criminal complaint against him in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot District Satna under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Due to his bad luck, the said complaint was also rejected granting liberty to file another one for the cognizable offences in accordance with law. On the contrary, the respondent No. 5 made a complaint against the appellant to the Minister, Civil Supplies Department during his visit to Satna on 22/24-8-2017, on which
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a resignation is effective when it operates to terminate the employment, and the acceptance of a resignation is valid if it is voluntary and i....
An employee has the right to withdraw the resignation before it becomes effective, and the employer's action of informing the employee that the resignation has been accepted and the employee stands r....
A resignation cannot be withdrawn after its acceptance.
A resignation must be unconditional and comply with procedural requirements; failure to do so renders it invalid.
An employee's resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance even if made conditionally, as long as the relationship has not been severed.
An employee's resignation is effective upon acceptance by the employer, and withdrawal must occur before acceptance; acceptance of benefits indicates cessation of employment.
An employee can withdraw a resignation before it becomes effective, even if accepted, as long as the employer-employee relationship persists.
An employee cannot withdraw his resignation after it has been accepted by the employer.
Resignation – Withdrawal of such resignation by employee prior to effective date is permissible.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
